Money in Your Pocket: The Earned Income Tax Credit
January 29, 2010
Every penny counts in today’s economy, yet many working people are overlooking an important tax credit that could put up to $5,657 in their pockets. While over 1.5 million New Yorkers claimed the Earned Income Tax Credit (EITC) last year, putting an average of $2,011.49 in the hands of struggling New Yorkers, the IRS estimates that one in four eligible taxpayers miss out.
First offered in 1975, the EITC is a refundable credit for people who work, but do not have a high income. It is the federal government’s largest benefits program for working families.
Credits are calculated based on your income and the number of children in your family. I have detailed below, but the IRS website has a table that summarizes this information.
For the 2009 filing year, the new maximum credit is $5,657 for a family with three or more children; $5,028 for a family with two children; $3,043 for a family with one child; and $457 for a family without children.
Head of household filers who earned less than $43,279 (for a family with three or more children), $40,295 (for a family with two children), $35,463 (for a family with one child), and $13,440 (for a family with no children) may be eligible. Income limits are $5,000 higher for each category of family where the taxpayer’s status is married filing jointly.
Eligible taxpayers must file federal income tax returns to receive the credit – even if they are not otherwise required to file.
There are also state and city versions of the EITC that can be claimed by eligible taxpayers, substantially increasing the total your family may get in refunds. For more information, I encourage New Yorkers to visit www.eitc.irs.gov.
A Huge Victory for Tenants in Court Case Ruling Against Unjust RGB Rent Hike
January 28, 2010
Tenants protest RGB hearings in 2009. (Photo by Housing Conservation Coordinators.)
For the past two years, the NYC Rent Guidelines Board (RGB) has outrageously imposed minimum, flat rent increases to tenants who have been in their apartments for longer than six years. When a tenant moves from a stabilized unit, landlords are allowed to jack the rent on apartments through an allowed “vacancy increase”–so we can assume the pro-landlord RGB thinking was that when tenants don’t move very often, landlords are missing out on the extra increase opportunity.
In 2008, the RGB set increases at 4.5% (for one-year leases) and 8.5% for two-year leases–unless you lived in your apartment for six or more years; if so, your increase was 4.5% or $45 (whichever was greater) for a one-year lease or 8.5% or $85 (whichever was greater) for a two-year lease. In 2009, the RGB set increases at 3.0% (for one-year leases) and 6.0% for two-year leases–unless you lived in your apartment for six or more years; if so, your increase was 3.0% or $30 (whichever was greater) for a one-year lease or 6.0% or $60 (whichever was greater) for a two-year lease.
I am very pleased that yesterday, as the NY Daily News (“Judge throws out minimum rent increases imposed by Rent Guidelines Board“) and the New York Times City Room Blog (“Ruling Could Mean Lower Rents for 300,000 Tenants”) reported, Manhattan Supreme Court Judge Emily Jane Goodman ruled that the practice was unlawful and “penalizes tenants failing to move in a city that has virtually no affordable housing.” This is a just and long-overdue decision and we have the Legal Aid Society to thank for representing a class of tenants in bringing this suit (the Legal Aid Society’s press release is linked here).
The minimum increases on long-term tenants are a poor tax. For tenants whose rents are lower, the increases were startling. An example that was cited in the lawsuit filed by the Legal Aid Society, was Mr. Paul Hertgen, an unemployed Staten Island tenant who is normally a truck driver. Because of the 2008 guidelines, his rent increased from $685 to $770–a 12% increased as opposed to an 8.5% increase that he would have paid were he not an 18 year long-term tenant.
Long-term tenants are the people who live their whole lives in their communities – in these homes they are born, marry, raise families, and grow old. Helping families to stay in the homes should be the purpose of our public policy–but the RGB seems to think that it has the opposite responsibility. When the RGB decided to pick on long-term tenants, they de facto declared war on our communities.
For the past two years, I have testified against these minimum increases to long-term tenants. (See the Publications 2009 and Publications 2008 sections of this blog to download copies of those testimonies.)
Landlord representatives have predictably said that they will appeal the decision, so we will have to wait to see the outcome of that before tenants can apply for their refunds–but those refunds are estimated to be as much as $100 million citywide.
The fact that this lawsuit had to be filed at all underscores the urgent need for serious reform of the RGB. The basic equation is simple: In New York City today, landlord incomes are going up, even while low-income New Yorkers are paying unsustainably large portions of their income in rent. The RGB’s own data from 2005 shows that rent stabilized New Yorkers spend close to 40% of their household income on rent. Over one third of New York City renters spend at least half their income on rent. According to the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development, “the generally accepted definition of affordability is for a household to pay no more than 30 percent of its annual income on housing. Families who pay more than 30 percent of their income for housing are considered cost burdened and may have difficulties affording necessities such as food, clothing, transportation, and medical care.”
Continuing to allow the Mayor to control the majority of appointments to the Board is a deeply flawed model, he has demonstrated time and again that his appointees will only serve the interests of landlords. For these reasons, I am a co-sponsor of legislation (A.5282), with my friend Assembly Member George Latimer, to bring comprehensive reform to this body.
Congratulations to New RIOC Board Members!
January 27, 2010
I am proud to congratulate Margie Smith and Michael Shinozaki on their long-awaited confirmation by the State Senate to the Roosevelt Island Operating Corporation Board of Directors, as well as Dr. Kathie Grimm on the confirmation of her re-nomination.
Margie, Michael, and Kathie are three of Roosevelt Island’s most talented and dedicated community leaders, and they will be key contributors to a Board that has steadily grown more representative of the island it serves.
I have been a consistent advocate for democratizing the RIOC Board, and these confirmations mark another important step forward in that process. I sponsor a bill (A.3953/S.1394) with Senator Jose Serrano, which would reconstitute the RIOC Board so that it is elected rather than appointed. And in 2008, I secured funds for ballot machines so that the Roosevelt Island Residents Association could run their balloting. In that historic election islanders chose Dr. Grimm, along with five other nominees, to represent them on the Board. Margie and Michael were elected last May, in another successful ballot with excellent turnout.
The island’s voters have chosen supremely qualified individuals with a proven commitment to serving their community. It goes to show that democracy really does work: when people are given the opportunity to participate in the governing of their own communities, they take their civic responsibility seriously. RIOC is better off for it, and so are the residents of Roosevelt Island.
Unfortunately, the Governor has not always respected the will of Roosevelt Island’s voters, as when he failed to officially nominate two of the winners of the 2008 election. I wrote to the Governor at that time urging the confirmation of all six nominees and I continue to press him to do the right thing. (You can find my May, 2008 letter in the Publications section of this blog.) Islanders deserve nothing less than full democratization of the RIOC Board.
The Drumbeat For Oreo’s Law Grows Louder
January 26, 2010
The tragic case of Oreo, an abused dog who was euthanized despite her rescue by the American Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals (APSCA), brought to light a tragic loophole in our animal protection laws. Oreo survived a fall from a six-story building, but was put down after being found to have untreatable aggression, despite the fact that a rescue group wanted to adopt her for rehabilitation. In response, I introduced Oreo’s Law (A.9449/S.6412) with New York State Senator Tom Duane to close that loophole.
My bill, modeled on an existing law in California, allows animal welfare organizations the right to request animals be given to their care when a shelter is planning to euthanize them.
Today, the San Francisco Chronicle published an article, “Do animals need laws protecting them from shelters?” lauding my bill and furthering the drumbeat for a law to protect dogs like Oreo, saying “all over New York, indeed, all over the United States, there are shelters right now killing dogs and cats who could be saved if only they’d let qualified local rescue groups and foster volunteers take animals out of their facilities.”
As a dog owner and a foster parent for an animal rescue group myself, I was heartbroken to learn that Oreo was euthanized. When humane organizations volunteer their expertise in difficult cases, shelters should work with them to the fullest extent possible. This legislation will give tragically abused animals like Oreo another chance at life.
For Select Bus Service to Succeed, Bus Lanes Must Be Separated
January 21, 2010
The Department of Transportation and the Metropolitan Transportation Authority recently presented preliminary designs for Select Bus Service along First and Second Avenues at a Community Advisory Committee meeting.
Last fall when the New York City Department of Transportation and the Metropolitan Transportation Authority announced the proposed stops for Select Bus Service on the Upper East Side, I was concerned about the siting of stops on First and Second Avenues at East 79th and 86th Streets. The original proposed SBS stops were set to be across the street from existing local stops.
In September, I wrote to the DOT and MTA and asked them to find a way to ensure that future SBS and existing local stops were on the same block on these routes (see the 2009 Publications section of this website). I was therefore very pleased to see that in the draft designs that were unveiled at last week’s Community Advisory Committee meeting the design proposals included that SBS stops would be sited on the same block as existing local stops. This goes a long way in promoting pedestrian safety.
My remaining concern is the lack of physically separated bus lanes in the agencies’ design schematics. This is a big negative impact on the quality of service that SBS can deliver. Last month, I joined with Assembly Member Brian Kavanagh in sending a letter to the DOT Commissioner in support of physically separated bus lanes (this letter can also be found in the 2009 Publications section of this website).
While I appreciate the need to address the needs of businesses that rely on deliveries, there are other ways to do this besides sacrificing separated bus lanes. The primary goal of SBS must be to provide mass transit consumers with uninterrupted, speedy service along the First and Second Avenue corridors–this should be the priority over all other small inconveniences.
